Topic: Moderator accountability

[Peripatetic Phil]

That's it in a nutshell. I, for one, have full confidence in curryhell. Even if you don't.

I /had/ full confidence in Curryhell when he was appointed.  Sadly that confidence started to go downhill when he deleted a thread that Garp had started with no public explanation, and then went on to launch a series of personal attacks on George in flagrant breach of the Terms and Conditions to which he had agreed.  It fell to an all-time low when he then (ab)used his powers as moderator to delete those self-same messages, along with a number of others, in what even the most open-minded member might reasonably view as an attempt to cover his tracks.  This forum has had enough of despots -- it is time we were moderated by committee, not by any one individual no matter how significant his contributions to the forum may have been prior to his appointment as moderator (cf. CA).

"All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- never was this more clearly exemplified than in the sad history of the moderation of this forum, and yet some appear unable or unwilling to learn the lesson of this.

** Phil.

[Secret Santa]

it is time we were moderated by committee, not by any one individual no matter how significant his contributions to the forum may have been prior to his appointment as moderator (cf. CA).

You're quite right Phil. Actions which are inherently controversial such as mass post deletions or thread locking should require a vote between the moderators. Many other forums work on this principle but to make it fair requires a minimum of three moderators.

We have, as you rightly say, seen the deleterious effects to both individuals and the forum as a whole of allowing a single moderator essentially unrestricted power. The moderator voting method reduces that effect substantially.

Edit: When I talked above about mass post deletions I was talking in generalities. But I've just seen the amount of pruning that CH has done to the "mix powder" thread! You've turned into CA, CH. If you're going to prune every thread of irrelevant comments you're really going to have your work cut out and you'll be killing the free-flow nature of discussion, not to mention friendly banter. Or do you suggest that every thought we have during a thread that is not exactly on topic demands a new thread be started?

Absolutely ridiculous behaviour. You're being too heavy handed and acting remarkably like CA. If we wanted that we could just go to his forum and be done with it.  :

[littlechilie]

Any progressive community needs no have a clear out of old views. This makes way for the new generation to take over! It's always hard to except change, especial when your used to having it all.

[Peripatetic Phil]

it is time we were moderated by committee, not by any one individual no matter how significant his contributions to the forum may have been prior to his appointment as moderator (cf. CA).

You're quite right Phil. Actions which are inherently controversial such as mass post deletions or thread locking should require a vote between the moderators. Many other forums work on this principle but to make it fair requires a minimum of three moderators.

We have, as you rightly say, seen the deleterious effects to both individuals and the forum as a whole of allowing a single moderator essentially unrestricted power. The moderator voting method reduces that effect substantially.

Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ?  Your appointment would, we already know, be acceptable to George, and I would hope that it might be equally acceptable to Curryhell.

** Phil.

[Secret Santa]

Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ?

No. I'd have to behave then!  ;D

[George]

Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ?

No. I'd have to behave then!  ;D

Nonsense! As you know, I haven't changed my behaviour as a member. Go on, give it a try (take on the role of third moderator) to temper the apparent, extreme moderation style of CH!

I agree completely with the idea of voting. I was going to suggest to CH that no threads are locked or posts deleted unless we both agree but I quickly realised I'd be wasting my time. CH is clearly not a team player and more like a loose cannon.

[Ghoulie]

Nothing infuriates me more than when a mod deletes or modifies someones post without a pm to that person explaining why the action was necessary / taken - or even a reason put in the place of the 'offending' post.

I am a mod / supermod elsewhere and have been on the receiving end of such actions - banned in some cases with the infuriating situation of having no access for redress.

Mods have to be as impartial as it is possible to be.  I have seen my posts withdrawn / deleted and the mod concerned (not here I may add) has admitted they didn't bother to read the whole post - merely the 1st line.  Got their knickers in a total twist by misinterpreting a post from one word in the 1st line.  Modship sadly goes to the heads of some people.

PS - don't ask me to mod - I am not on here often enough!!

[Garp]

Regarding a third moderator, firstly Admin would have to agree.

If that were to happen, perhaps members should volunteer or be put forward (with their agreement) and a poll of members conducted. Could be better than the forthcoming general election 

[George]

I just added a poll and voted 'yes' against my own question.

[curryhell]

I hope CH will see this thread as potentially useful feedback and will not attempt to stifle any debate.

And i suppose this is just your idea of a debate George.  I would term it more of a which hunt  :

I am sure people have plenty to say about both of us and our styles of moderation.  I'm more than happy to listen providing the comments are of a constructive nature and the opportunity is not simply used as an excuse to make personal attacks.  Does that suit you?  If so, then let the members begin to post and the forum move forward 

Funny how two people only want to talk about me, isn't it.  How surprising    You're obviously the model moderator  ;D

Curryhell and George, I call upon you publicly to work together, to put aside when moderating any personal differences that you may have,  to agree a policy for firm-but-fair moderation, and then to /agree/ and implement a course of action, rather than act unilaterally, whenever moderation is required in the future.

Funny that, since that's what I PM'd George.  Think this must have fallen on deaf ears Phil. 

I /had/ full confidence in Curryhell when he was appointed. 

No you didn't Phil.  You're just saying the politically correct thing.  You were as gobsmacked as your mate George.

If you're going to prune every thread of irrelevant comments you're really going to have your work cut out and you'll be killing the free-flow nature of discussion, not to mention friendly banter. Or do you suggest that every thought we have during a thread that is not exactly on topic demands a new thread be started?

I have no such intentions SS.  I'm here to post about curry.  If you all focused on that, any moderation would be minimal.  As for the free-flow nature of discussion, I would suggest it has many times flowed far too freely without so much a murmur from the moderator or he's been right there in the thick of it.  Friendly banter  ;D ;D  I certainly don't see that in many of threads that should have been moderated

Yes, I previously wrote that I would resign but it was a bluff, like politicians frequently do. I changed my mind when I could start to see that CH might prove useful.

Isn't that a  surprise to all George  :

I was going to suggest to CH that no threads are locked or posts deleted unless we both agree but I quickly realised I'd be wasting my time. CH is clearly not a team player and more like a loose cannon.

Now that's really funny George.  It's a shame you didn't reply to my PM when i was first appointed

We can either work together to present a united and consistant front so all know what will and will not be moderated or you and I can do our own thing , which will be of no benefit to the forum at all. 
Alternatively, you may choose to sit quietly by, and snipe at me from the sidelines. 

And the only loose cannon around here is you George, as you have been now for so long and been allowed to get away with it.

I'm starting to come round to the point of view that CH's appointment as a moderator might be useful after all.

And well you might George.  It's certainly taken the spot light off your normal antics